Just a point of clarification. I don't mind fuzzy science, or unexplained things in science fiction. I can live with black boxes. It's the bullshit science that I don't like (like the movie's black holes). I know that Star Trek has a history of using bad science, like diverting the Nexus (since the star's mass had not yet reached the planet, its center of mass would affect everything outside the explosion as if the star were a point, just like when the star was intact). I will happily bitch about any Star Trek that uses bullshit science. Farscape and Doctor Who can get away with ignoring established physics, but Star Trek invests too much in real-world science to do that.
The time travel from the original series was not caused by falling into a black hole. Instead, a slingshot around a black hole caused them to accelerate to some great speed and sent them through space-time (fuzzy science at best). This was also used in Star Trek 4. In the new movie, it's clearly not a slingshot, just falling in, which usually results in all of your atoms getting real cozy with eachother.
Also, the miniskirts were sexist in the 60s and they are sexist now. That should have been updated along with the rest. It's telling that the only actress older than 40 that had lines was the computer's voice.
See Cloverfield. It's worth a watch.
As a complete non (anti?) Star Trek person, I enjoyed the film. I had no baggage with me in the theater; just enjoyed a pretty kick ass sci-fi action flick.
Agree that the "science" was fuzzy.
Monsters on Hoth scene should have been cut as it was completely pointless and didn't add to the story.
Commenting by HaloScan
